# Should the thread on hot to bypass the China firewall have been closed??? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 10, 2006, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911 "2006-02-10T20:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/101 "2006-02-11T22:19:13Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I don’t, either, but that’s because I think those are (for the most part) good laws that serve a useful purpose. _You_ think so. Do you think the Chinese who violate those laws are evil people? They aren’t really. I don’t pretend to be an expert on the culture, but here’s my take: from their cultural perspective, the thought of owning an idea in that way is hard to understand. Given the choice between trying to wrap their mind around it, and making a buck… most will choose the money. Some moral viewpoints are [near] universal. Others aren’t. > [@](#): > > Do you think that it’s ever okay to violate a law? Yeah, but it’s got to be one of those universal deals, and it’s got to be a hill worth dying on. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/102 "2006-02-11T22:38:28Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > Yeah, but it’s got to be one of those universal deals, and it’s got to be a hill worth dying on. So say there’s a law that everyone has to hop between 6-7pm each day. I shouldn’t violate that (stupid) law, because it’s not worth dying over? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/103 "2006-02-11T22:50:59Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > _You_ think so. Do you think the Chinese who violate those laws are evil people? They aren’t really. When did I characterize violating copyright as “evil?” I think strong copyright laws encourage people to create more art, and I think more art leads to a more interesting and robust culture. So I think copyright laws are a good idea, and ought to be enforced. Does China not have any copyright laws? If they don’t, then there’s nothing wrong with someone in China posting a website about how to circumvent copyright laws. For that matter, there’s nothing wrong with someone in _America_ posting a website about how to circumvent copyright laws. Freedom of speech, and all that. I don’t have to agree with the content to think someone has a right to say it. > [@](#): > > I don’t pretend to be an expert on the culture, but here’s my take: from their cultural perspective, the thought of owning an idea in that way is hard to understand. Given the choice between trying to wrap their mind around it, and making a buck… most will choose the money. I’ll be certain to give your insights into the Chinese national character the consideration they deserve. > [@](#): > > Some moral viewpoints are [near] universal. Others aren’t. What’s your point? > [@](#): > > Yeah, but it’s got to be one of those universal deals, and it’s got to be a hill worth dying on. I think freedom of speech is worth dying for. I take it that you do not? ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/104 "2006-02-11T23:05:24Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Thanks, you’re doing my job for me. Swell. Now, do you actually have a position on the thread topic you’d like to discuss, or did you just come in here to play silly games? You say I need practice debating the merits of an argument; fine, give me something to work with here. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/105 "2006-02-11T23:32:02Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > Ludovic?! You’re too dim to discuss this with. I’d rather clog dance with broken glass in my clogs. No, **you** are :rolleyes:. That ought to settle it, according to your social developmental level. Now then… > [@Waverly](#): > > Did you read the quote? He didn’t need a yardstick at all. He had answered my question, and clarified that he “might not agree with it morally if it broke a US law I agree with.” In other words, he wants his own moral compass to set the path for others. When did I say that my moral opinion should be law? We’re talking a binary decision by a private firm, both options being perfectly legal. Of course I’d prefer everyone to follow my morals, but if that happened there’d be no war or censorship. > [@](#): > > At best, that takes audacity. I tend to think of it as silly. Dangerous silliness, but silliness nonetheless. Silly me, having opinions and such. > [@](#): > > I think many US drug laws don’t serve their purpose. Do I support an off-shore website teaching people how to get around those laws? Nope. Why not? Certainly many of these methods would provoke more violence in and of themselves, for instance if you suggested ways to contact underground figures. That’s dangerous and unethical and shouldn’t be encouraged. But other ways might not be so clear. > [@](#): > > Many Chinese don’t agree with US patent law. Do I support the violation of those laws? Nope. Neither do I, _to the extent that I believe artists and companies have a right to their work_. > [@](#): > > Do I think the Chinese government should restrict the flow of information? No, I don’t, but neither am I so full of myself to think that I’ve got the right to help people violate that law, nor do I pretend to fully understand what implications that could have. If you don’t know the implications, why abet intolerance? Why not let people decide for themselves whether to risk it? > [@](#): > > I personally think it would suck get some poor schmuck in Shenzhen arrested so that I could feel morally superior for 10 minutes. You do what you want. It sure would, but that’s like blaming someone for “innocent seduction” or blaming a person for having their valuable car stolen because they had the audacity to park it in the street. I applaud those who stand up to intolerant regimes, even if I would not necessarily be able to do so myself. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/106 "2006-02-12T00:13:57Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I think freedom of speech is worth dying for. I take it that you do not? That’s a tough one, Miller. Are you talking hyperbolically? Sure. Literally? I’d like to say yes, but it would be unfair to pound my chest and say yes until I’m put in that situation. If you are out there risking your life so that the Chinese can surf for porn and read the dope, then I sincerely apologize for giving you a hard time. My point about morality is that is subjective, relative, and more complex then you seem to think. Even when you are certain that you are correct, you need to understand where the other side is coming from before you plant your flag in the moral high ground. You can shrug off my argument that intellectual property theft does not seem immoral to everyone in every culture, but it doesn’t demonstrate that you really have a better understanding than I do. I’m sorry, but I just don’t have the endurance to get into a line by line dissection battle. I’ll stick to what I feel is relevant, and I’ll happily stipulate that you have more stamina than I do. ---
**Author:** ![Silentgoldfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@Silentgoldfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silentgoldfish)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/107 "2006-02-12T00:15:40Z")
Can I just take a step back from the personal bickering to ask how this decision doesn’t go against the hands off if it’s not against the law but wash our hands of the personal fallout policy **Tubadiva** and the mods wound up deciding on in this thread?: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6416110&postcount=42](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6416110&postcount=42) ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/108 "2006-02-12T00:20:48Z")
> [@Creative\_Munster](#): > > Has **samclem** decided to abandon this thread? If so, it is because he knows he doesn’t have any legitimate counter-argument to th responses being posted here. Nah. I just got home from work. Real world. First–an apology to **Q.E.D.**. I was rude and unprofessional to respond to you the way I did. Not my usual behavior. I would STILL close the original thread. Even though there was nothing there that would violate US law(which is an automatic shutdown), there are threads from time to time which delve into grey areas. And such matters will always be controversial. Trying to give advice to people on how to violate their countries laws is a grey area to me. And giving advice which might put those people in jeopardy just didn’t seem worth it. At least, not worth it to have the Reader involved. As others have said, the internet is a big place and this kind of info can be gotten out there without involving the SDMB and the Reader. But just because something isn’t illegal in the US, that doesn’t mean it has to be allowed on the SDMB. My analogy about the Reader telling me to remove threads about homosexuals was very poor. This was typed in haste. Put it down to lack of sleep, not the beer–definitely not 🙂 Of course, if the Reader ever did such a thing, I’d resign. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/109 "2006-02-12T00:24:56Z")
> [@Silentgoldfish](#): > > Can I just take a step back from the personal bickering to ask how this decision doesn’t go against the hands off if it’s not against the law but wash our hands of the personal fallout policy **Tubadiva** and the mods wound up deciding on in this thread?: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6416110&postcount=42](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6416110&postcount=42) I see that as saying to the members of this board, and ONLY to the members of this board, that you should think twice and post once. It had little to do with things that are against the law in the US, things that are against another country’s laws, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/110 "2006-02-12T00:32:29Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > First–an apology to **Q.E.D.**. I was rude and unprofessional to respond to you the way I did. Not my usual behavior. Apology accepted, ya big goof. 🙂 > [@samclem](#): > > Even though there was nothing there that would violate US law(which is an automatic shutdown), there are threads from time to time which delve into grey areas. And such matters will always be controversial. Trying to give advice to people on how to violate their countries laws is a grey area to me. I appreciate your reasoning, but I still have to disagree. Not with the idea that such topics are a grey area–of course they are. But in this instance, we’re talking about suppression of a basic human right we, as US citizens, all take for granted: the freedom to access informational content without censorship. If the US government tried to institute an internet censorship policy like the Chinese firewall, I bet you would be one of the first ones to raise a howl, **samclem**. As would I. As such, your closing of the thread and the removal of my link strikes me as hypocritical, to some extent. I agree that you and the Reader have every right to close any thread for any reason, but I urge you to think over your decision, and its implications. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/111 "2006-02-12T00:38:48Z")
Would you have me close or leave open a thread that details step by step how to smuggle Bibles into China? (Is that legal in China? I’m just using it as an example because I think it might not be. If I"m wrong, then this falls apart) Since freedom of religion is a basic human right(so we believe in the US), then the Reader should welcome someone giving out such advice on their board. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/112 "2006-02-12T00:45:34Z")
The implications are that those seeking ways to circumvent the sensors _will have to look elsewhere_. Meanwhile, the blue meanies lack inclination to f\*rewall this board. Moreover, the Reader isn’t involved in any surprise early morning visits. We should deal with the world as it is, not as how it ought to be. Failure to think tactically is immoral. (Not that I’m accusing anybody of that failure, btw.) There are other implications, of course. The issue is a tricky one. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/113 "2006-02-12T00:50:12Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > Would you have me close or leave open a thread that details step by step how to smuggle Bibles into China? (Is that legal in China? I’m just using it as an example because I think it might not be. If I"m wrong, then this falls apart) Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that it is. I’d have no problem with leaving such a thread open. Provisions apply, of course. If one of the steps was to kill a Chinese customs agent (or whatever their equivalent is), then shutting it down would certainly need to be done. You get the idea, I trust. > [@samclem](#): > > Since freedom of religion is a basic human right(so we believe in the US), then the Reader should welcome someone giving out such advice on their board. Right? Sure, why not? Well, “welcome” might be too strong a word, but I fail to see why it should concern them one way or the other. As long as smuggling Bibles into China doesn’t violate _US law_, what’s the harm? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/114 "2006-02-12T00:50:25Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > That’s a tough one, Miller. Are you talking hyperbolically? Sure. Literally? I’d like to say yes, but it would be unfair to pound my chest and say yes until I’m put in that situation. If you are out there risking your life so that the Chinese can surf for porn and read the dope, then I sincerely apologize for giving you a hard time. Well, sure, I’m talking about ideals. I haven’t ever been in a situation where I had to risk my life to speak freely, and hopefully I never will be. But there are lots of people in China who are in exactly that position, and quite a few of them are dead because they stood up for a principle they believed in. I think that’s astoundingly admirable, and while there’s not a lot I can do to help them, one thing I can do is facilitate their efforts to speak freely by circulating information about how to circumvent their government censors. Most of them, likely, are not going to take the risk of following that advice. Some of them are. I don’t see anything morally or ethically questionable about helping those who are willing to risk their lives over the issue to do just that. In fact, I see it as an unquestionable good. > [@](#): > > My point about morality is that is subjective, relative, and more complex then you seem to think. Even when you are certain that you are correct, you need to understand where the other side is coming from before you plant your flag in the moral high ground. You can shrug off my argument that intellectual property theft does not seem immoral to everyone in every culture, but it doesn’t demonstrate that you really have a better understanding than I do. Your point is stupifyingly irrelevant to anything that’s been said in this thread. Is morality subjective? Yes, absolutely, I’ve never said otherwise, in this or any other thread. That does not prevent each of us, as individuals, from taking a moral stand, or from condemning things we see as immoral. Obstruction of free speech is, to me, immoral. Therefore, I have no objections to attempts to circumvent China’s laws in this area. I’m sure the Chinese government has lots and lots of reasons for having this law. I’m under no obligation to agree with those reasons. There are lots of reasons why pirating movies and software is moral, too. I don’t have to agree with those reasons, either. If you want to actually argue the morality of either action, I’m game. You haven’t done that in this thread. I’m not sure what you’re trying to do in this thread, as your statments in this thread make almost no sense in the context of the posts to which you’re replying. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/115 "2006-02-12T00:51:44Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > The implications are that those seeking ways to circumvent the sensors _will have to look elsewhere_. > > Meanwhile, the blue meanies lack inclination to f\*rewall this board. Moreover, the Reader isn’t involved in any surprise early morning visits. > > We should deal with the world as it is, not as how it ought to be. Failure to think tactically is immoral. > > (Not that I’m accusing anybody of that failure, btw.) > > There are other implications, of course. The issue is a tricky one. My Decoder Ring is in my other pants. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/116 "2006-02-12T01:10:13Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > Would you have me close or leave open a thread that details step by step how to smuggle Bibles into China? (Is that legal in China? actually, in interest of fighting ignorance, China prints millions of bibles. Mainly by the [Amity Foundation](http://www.amityfoundation.org/page.php?page=5). I think the bible smuggling thing is a giant scam. Here’s a [blurb from the northern ireland bible society](http://www.bsni.co.uk/world_news/china.htm) The Amity Printing Press at Nanjing has been key to Bible production and distribution in China, and its work was widely praised. It employs 320 local people and produces up to 10,000 Bibles per day, mostly in the 1919 Union translation, although the Today’s Chinese Version is growing in popularity among the young. The low cost of Bibles is made possible by the provision by the United Bible Societies of huge quantities of printing paper. [/quote] Bible smuggling and Chick tracts are in fact illegal. It’s not the straight bible but the commentary and what would be viewed as propaganda that goes with it. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/117 "2006-02-12T01:16:58Z")
let me try to fix the coding > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by samclem > Would you have me close or leave open a thread that details step by step how to smuggle Bibles into China? (Is that legal in China? actually, in interest of fighting ignorance, China prints millions of bibles. Mainly by the Amity Foundation. I think the bible smuggling thing is a giant scam. Here’s a blurb from the northern ireland bible society “The Amity Printing Press at Nanjing has been key to Bible production and distribution in China, and its work was widely praised. It employs 320 local people and produces up to 10,000 Bibles per day, mostly in the 1919 Union translation, although the Today’s Chinese Version is growing in popularity among the young. The low cost of Bibles is made possible by the provision by the United Bible Societies of huge quantities of printing paper.” Bible smuggling and Chick tracts are in fact illegal. It’s not the straight bible but the commentary and what would be viewed as propaganda that goes with it. ---
**Author:** ![Silentgoldfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@Silentgoldfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silentgoldfish)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/118 "2006-02-12T01:19:35Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > I see that as saying to the members of this board, and ONLY to the members of this board, that you should think twice and post once. It had little to do with things that are against the law in the US, things that are against another country’s laws, etc. No, but it is saying that if it’s not against the law there’s no reason for you to shut down a thread to try to protect members from themselves. As the original thread broke no US laws that’s essentially what you’ve done here. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/119 "2006-02-12T01:53:36Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > one thing **I can do** is facilitate their efforts to speak freely by circulating information about how to circumvent their government censors. [bolding mine] I’ll support you when you run off, take the responsibility upon yourself, and do it on your own dime. Let me know when you have your web site up, and I’ll make a donation. Meanwhile, don’t insist that the Reader uphold _your_ ideals in the way that _you_ see fit. I don’t think that is what your $15 buys you, but I could be wrong. Check your terms of use. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/120 "2006-02-12T01:58:52Z")
> [@Silentgoldfish](#): > > No, but it is saying that if it’s not against the law there’s no reason for you to shut down a thread to try to protect members from themselves. As the original thread broke no US laws that’s essentially what you’ve done here. Just because something isn’t against the laws of the US, it doesn’t mean that it has an inherent right to be posted on a private message board. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911.md?page=7)